<< Should I have used Akkadian? Or Persian? The point of the analogy was
that
the theory, as stated, is unprovable, since you cannot prove a negative. If
all the copies are gone and all the testimony to something's existence is
gone, then you can never advance beyond the theory, which is why so many
dismiss it out of hand. >>

You should not have used either one, let alone "the King's English." You
should have pointed to the evidence *suggesting* a Hebrew/Aramaic original
and noted that we do not have any original NT docs, so that we must accept
the mss. we have all the while noting where there is evidence that the NT may
have been translated, in whole or in part, from a Semitic original. This
*evidence* does not prove the point, but it suggests something, and that
something is far more worthy of serious scholarly reflection than an attempt
to pass it off as an issue equivalent to arguing whether or not the NT was
originally written in the King's English.